Call us with confidence... in confidence

September 6, 2007 8:48 AM

Anti-Socials- A brief piece on people living with one of Britain's eerily Orwellian "Anti-Social Behaviour Orders". [previously]
posted by tehloki (129 comments total)

Wow. It seems kind of like, let's find someone headed down the wrong path and give him a good strong push in that direction.
posted by StickyCarpet at 8:59 AM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

A very brief piece. Apparently it took him six months - that works out at a photo every six weeks. Not much in the way of analysis here...
posted by rhymer at 9:07 AM on September 6, 2007

"Putting People First"
posted by DU at 9:09 AM on September 6, 2007

Are the British completely fucking insane? Did someone read 1984 and go, "Wow, that's the kind of society *I'd* like to live in." What happened?
posted by signalnine at 9:13 AM on September 6, 2007 [7 favorites]

Sweet. Finally a post about non-U.S. idiocy.
posted by well_balanced at 9:14 AM on September 6, 2007 [5 favorites]

Is there a "next page" button I am missing somewhere with either more photos or some text? Or is still more of the kind of trenchant socio-cultural analysis I've come to expect from Vice?
posted by sneakin at 9:15 AM on September 6, 2007

Well jeez, we have to do SOMEthing to keep them out of the Vortex. Do you expect Eternals to mingle with Brutals?
posted by fleetmouse at 9:16 AM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

could have done with more photos - good idea and photos.
posted by sgt.serenity at 9:18 AM on September 6, 2007

This first comment is slaying me:

I'd love to discover that Carl is 1 inch tall and he's standing on a lawn, like in "Honey I Shrunk the Kids".

He'd probably start fights with beetles and ants.
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 9:20 AM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

They're putting their faces on fucking buses?

Why can't they use the name of the crime they supposedly did? Is petty vandalism make you "anti-social"? Littering? Loitering? The term itself is Orwellian.
posted by spaltavian at 9:20 AM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

Man, if I lived in England, a quarter of my extended family would be in jail. Fucking creepy.
posted by Terminal Verbosity at 9:30 AM on September 6, 2007

Did I miss the article, or is it really just some pics?
posted by aramaic at 9:33 AM on September 6, 2007

Well, obviously this is utterly insane, but why do we keep having links to Vice? It pretty much sucks every time.
posted by blacklite at 9:41 AM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

As someone who hates both intrusive authoritarian governments and no-goodnik young people, I've quite torn on this issue. Regardless, kudos to Vice for sticking to their guns and eschewing depth and variety in favour of just throwing up a handful of pics... why, I could have almost been interested in the topic, which would have lead to thinking and other shit like that! Thanks, Vice!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:41 AM on September 6, 2007

People, people... yes, there aren't very many pictures, but the real fun is in reading the comments. There's the insight into British society. A cheering chorus of "Fuck 'em!".
posted by tehloki at 9:44 AM on September 6, 2007

Well, yes, fuck'em. They're all clearly a pain in the ass.
posted by Artw at 9:46 AM on September 6, 2007

And this helps turn them into productive members of society how, exactly?
posted by tehloki at 9:50 AM on September 6, 2007

I never knew that ASBO was this crazy:
--------------------------------------------------
The type of evidence that can be used to obtain an ASBO is much wider than for criminal cases. Both hearsay evidence and anonymous testimony are admissible as evidence.

[...]

An application for an ASBO is considered by the courts in its civil jurisdiction and is a civil order. However, breach of an ASBO is a criminal offence and conviction may result in up to 5 years imprisonment (2 for a minor). An ASBO may contain any prohibition even if the same is not an anti-social act, e.g. can include a prohibition in entering an area or speaking to named persons. Cases of orders have included:
Vandalism[8]
Theft[9]
Abusive behaviour[10]
Harassment[9]
Flyposting[11]
Organising illegal raves[12]
Begging[13]
--------------------------------------------------
posted by Foci for Analysis at 9:52 AM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

My favourite was the woman who got an ASBO for persistently answering the door in her underwear. Sorry, no pic at the link.
posted by Abiezer at 9:53 AM on September 6, 2007

The pictures are from an article in the Observer in April. It was quite interesting as I recall.
posted by itsjustanalias at 9:57 AM on September 6, 2007

I'm all for the police ticketing people for disturbing the peace or whatever when it's reasonable, but jail and pictures on the buses are pretty nuts.

I find the Yankees apparel and the STOP SNITCHING t-shirt interesting.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 10:00 AM on September 6, 2007

Why can't they use the name of the crime they supposedly did? Is petty vandalism make you "anti-social"? Littering? Loitering?

Asbo's may well be overused. I've no idea. However, the point of them was to address a serious problem that when everything else had failed.

In some areas, you get people, sometimes families, sometimes gangs of youths, that make the neighbourhood, and the lives of the people who live there, unutterably miserable. Generally, this would happen through a combination of petty crime, vandalism, threats and intimidation, and violence. Stopping it though, proved extremely difficult. The arrest of one gang or family member would often result in his associates amping up the intimidation. Often, because the people concerned were minors, imprisonment would be extremely difficult because our courts generally don't impose custodial sentences for these minor offences, but the impact of this behaviour on the victims goes way, way beyond that of even other serious crimes, like burglary.

Also, by and large, this is a problem that disproportionately affects those poorest, most disadvantaged and most vulnerable members of the community. The 'respectable' working classes living on public housing on sink estates, who, if they had any way whatsoever of getting out of there, would do. The reality is, that many of these people are genuinely terrorized, living with real intimidation and the omnipresent threat of violence -- as opposed to the more abstract idea of political terrorism that scares the pants of the bourgeoisie.

Of course, because most middle class MeFites don't live in these conditions, they obviously have no concern and sympathy for the real victims, preferring ignorant posturing about the supposed 'rights' of these scumbags. But I suspect if you had to suffer in the way that many poor people here in the UK do from this constant fear of threat and disorder, you'd all be talking about how you need the right to bear arms so that you could shoot the fuckers, let alone exclude them from a particular neighbourhood, or prevent them from approaching and intimidating particular people.

It sometimes becomes problematic in those middle class neighbourhoods where grumpy old fucks who just don't like kids think that they should be able to get ASBO's simply to impose their will on noisy kids who play football or skateboard or whatever. However, this stuff isn't antisocial behaviour, and doesn't warrant or usually result in ASBO's. By and large, they're imposed on people who create a living hell for a whole community -- and while it may not be the most elegant solution to the problem, it is the only one that has actually had any impact and started to give the people living in this situation some relief.

Real people's stories at:

http://www.nfh.org.uk/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=69

Username: Bill Fillmaff
Password: mefite
posted by PeterMcDermott at 10:01 AM on September 6, 2007 [13 favorites]

I always thought you got these for violating English social norms. Edgy things like smiling at strangers, making eye contact, saying "Have a nice day", engaging in customer service, reckless acts of pedestrian courtesy, etc...
posted by srboisvert at 10:03 AM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

Anyone who criticizes ASBOs as 'Orwellian' can't have spent much time in 21st century Britain.
posted by Flashman at 10:12 AM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

ASBO's are a complete nonsense, they're a circumvention of due process and should be canned. You can get jailed for violating an ASBO, without ever having seen a jury of your peers. The problem isn't the judicial process.
posted by Happy Dave at 10:13 AM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

People, people... yes, there aren't very many pictures, but the real fun is in reading the comments. There's the insight into British society. A cheering chorus of "Fuck 'em!".

Comments on Vice are not an insight into any society other than the society of people who choose to comment on completely uninformative articles. I'd really hesitate to label all of British society based on fifty comments. It would be like a non-American coming here and reading all the "OMG Orwell!" comments and determining that all of American society is a bunch of hypocritical, apathetic muffinheads because we haven't impeached the President who authorized the use on non-court ordered wiretaps to spy on Americans.

That being said, Britain clearly has a problem with youth crime. I am not sure that passing out leaflets and posting offenders faces on the back of busses is the way to help these kids. Making it impossible for people to get jobs certainly doesn't help them become model citizens.
posted by oneirodynia at 10:14 AM on September 6, 2007

And this helps turn them into productive members of society how, exactly?

It's not intended to turn them into productive members of society. It's intended to help productive members of society get on with their business without being pestered by antisocial nutjobs. The antisocial nutjobs themselves are left to spin in the wind.
posted by Artw at 10:17 AM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

And basically what PeterMcDermott said.
posted by Artw at 10:19 AM on September 6, 2007

I agree with you that anti-social behaviour is serious, PeterMcD, but it seems to me (though I'd left the UK before they came in) that they were a typically ill-thought out Labour response geared towards having numbers to point at come election time.
I don't think kids are any worse than when I was young; we had bad lads of all sorts, vandalism and violence and the rest. What's different now is there's no community restraint on things. The police and authorities don't help by treating the few people left who will intervene no different from the offenders, so you end up ceding the streets to a bunch of tearaways who feel untouchable. One other point a friend made to me was that ASBOs often just shift the problem elsewhere, again a statistical rather than real fix.
posted by Abiezer at 10:24 AM on September 6, 2007

oneirodynia, i've lived in america for 52 years and more than half the people in this country are hypocritical, apathetic muffinheads. they're all around.
posted by bruce at 10:26 AM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

It's like if a whole country was being run by my homeowners' association.
posted by mckenney at 10:26 AM on September 6, 2007 [2 favorites]

Username: Bill Fillmaff
Password: mefite

Using fake credentials is antisocial. Back in your cage with you!
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:27 AM on September 6, 2007

That being said, Britain clearly has a problem with youth crime.

I think the whole problem starts with parents who wear "STOP snitching" t-shirts — both in the UK and in the US. They're the ones who deserve ridicule and censure.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:31 AM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

I like how the article credulously prints their claims: "I've only committed a single, little disturbance once or twice. This law is unjust! No, really, I'm practically a martyred saint."
posted by oddman at 10:35 AM on September 6, 2007

Organizing raves is anti-social?

Hey, can citizens give the government an ASBO?
posted by telstar at 10:39 AM on September 6, 2007

Heh. The constant cry of the persistant pain in the arse. it isn't them ! The world is stacked against them! They HAD to get into that fight, they HAD to dump that engine block in the neighbours yard, don't you see? THEY MADE ME DO IT!
posted by Artw at 10:40 AM on September 6, 2007

they were a typically ill-thought out Labour response geared towards having numbers to point at come election time.

Perhaps - but they do get taken out of context. ASBOs aren't Labour's one-stop, magic bullet solution to crime. They were never pitched as a solution to stopping reoffending or the reoccurence of low-level anti-social behaviour. What they do well, though, when used correctly, is stop the misery that anti-social behaviour can cause for others. As Peter McDermott says above, when you've got low-level offending that generally doesn't qualify for a custodial intervention, or where the burden of proof in the criminal courts is such that conviction is very difficult, that doesn't stop the hellish time that neighbours on an estate can have with a problem family. That's what ASBOs are there to stop. But they're not there as an early intervention or preventative measure. What have Labour done on that? Well, lots as it happens. On youth crime, for instance:

- massive investment in early years support for the most deprived areas of the country through SureStart
- lots of new programmes for kids on the early cusp of offending to tackle the key risk factors that can lead to poor outcomes by 15-16: Youth Inclusion Support Panels, Positive Futures.
- started joining up some of the agencies via children's trusts and joint directors of children's services so you can have a properly coordinated approach to risk factors that lead to offending
- lots of programmes to tackle kids who are more entrenched in offending - eg Youth Inclusion Programmes run by Youth Offending Teams.

This is all light years away from the position in the mid 1990s. Yes there are flaws in ASBOs - but they don't by any means represent the totality of Blair's reforms to the criminal justice system, even though they're probably one of the key issues of domestic policy he'll be remembered for.
posted by greycap at 10:42 AM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

Petition against Yob Culture
posted by telstar at 10:47 AM on September 6, 2007

Thanks, greycap. I should probably stop commenting on things I'm completely out of touch with.
posted by Abiezer at 10:49 AM on September 6, 2007

The antisocial nutjobs themselves are left to spin in the wind.

Oh, OK then. There's really nothing like labeling people antisocial and ostracizing them to reform them.

That's sure to fix everything. Way to go!
posted by splice at 10:52 AM on September 6, 2007

When I first read this I thought the story was a little weak. Just a few photos of oddballs, some sob stories, but no real journalism in the piece.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:01 AM on September 6, 2007

There's really nothing like labeling people antisocial and ostracizing them to reform them.

Not really. Like I said, theres no intent to reform, just limit the damage they can cause.

TBH I;m not really convinced that the average ASBO recipiant is all that reformable.
That's sure to fix everything. Way to go!

Not really. But the various claims about ASBOs seem to be biased towards the negative and hugely overstated. This is not "OMG! Fascism!", this is the equivalent of, say, the Guilliani clean up new york through strick application of the broken windows theory. Or possibly a better metaphor would be chronic internet trolls who've been given a ban warning for disruptive behaviour.
posted by Artw at 11:04 AM on September 6, 2007

oneirodynia, i've lived in america for 52 years and more than half the people in this country are hypocritical, apathetic muffinheads. they're all around.

I've never said that is or is not the case. I am saying making generalizations about an entire country based on comments on a website may not be accurate.
posted by oneirodynia at 11:06 AM on September 6, 2007

greycap - Sadly Blair will be remembered for bending over to Bush and getting us into the stupid Iraq war and little else. Since he's an egomaniac probably be really upset by that...
posted by Artw at 11:07 AM on September 6, 2007

Peter McDermott: it doesn't matter whether people like you or not (that's what "antisocial" actually means... "people don't like you".) You still have the right to a trial by a jury of your peers.

These orders are simply a way of doing an end-run around the justice system to screw the unpopular. The fact that you support this idea strikes me as hideous.
posted by Malor at 11:17 AM on September 6, 2007 [5 favorites]

telstar: "Organizing raves is anti-social?"

My sentiments as well.

That said, there's definitely the whole chav thing, and I'm guessing that these ASBO's tend to fall into that "class/culture", though probably not all?

I've seen drive-by-slapping videos, I've seen these punks attacking innocent bystanders (one video I can't seem to find, shows a youth attacking an older man on a double decker bus when it was just the two of them).

What's interesting to me is that when I first heard of chavs, and this, I'm constantly reminded of The Invisibles, and the character Dane (a bad kid who ends up... well I won't spoil it if you haven't read it, but you should). Anyways, that character seems to me to fit this stereotype.

I have a feeling we Americans don't get the same concept of it, but at the same time, I'm still a firm believer in the due process, and for that reason, I don't support ASBO.

Contrarily, this sort of process is exactly what some of the old school anarchists (I can't recall for sure, but perhaps Kropotkin or Bakunin?) believed to be the best solution to aberrant communal behavior. Ostracism as a social control tool without forcing people into prison. Dunno if that works or not or if it's truly "anarchist". But just a counterpoint to "Big Brother"...
posted by symbioid at 11:18 AM on September 6, 2007

Evidence that what I say is right: greycap says, "or where the burden of proof in the criminal courts is such that conviction is very difficult".

In other words, it's a way of screwing unpopular people out of their rights. And it will gradually expand to include more and more people.

I can't believe anyone would support this idea. You aren't even sacrificing your liberty for safety, you're sacrificing it for a little convenience.
posted by Malor at 11:21 AM on September 6, 2007 [3 favorites]

Danes a vile little shit. He deserves to be locked up and get messed with by interdimensional weirdos.
posted by Artw at 11:22 AM on September 6, 2007

From the comments regarding due process I think possible people think that ASBOs are just pulled from thin air for a whim, and not issued by a magistrates' court as they are. Also it's worth noting that the ASBO itself does not come with a penalty - it has to be breached for a penalty to come into effect.
posted by Artw at 11:27 AM on September 6, 2007

The key influence around ASBO's was not Adolf Hitler, but Etzioni: there is a strong whiff of communitarianism about them.

To take a random example of one, I was in Exeter over the weekend, and there was an ASBO notice posted inside a cafe on Queen Street showing that a bloke had been banned from cafes in the city centre for persistently harrassing staff and customers. Now, I take the point about judicial process, but there is an issue where a large number of small disturbances are difficult to prosecute for, and difficult to prevent recurring. The ASBO was a perfect solution in this instance.
posted by athenian at 11:30 AM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

Like I said, theres no intent to reform, just limit the damage they can cause

How do ASBOs limit any type of damage in any way? If what the young punks are doing is illegal, you don't need an ASBO to lock them in. If it isn't, well... congratulations on inventing a way to disappear undesirables at a whim, without trial! So progressive.
posted by splice at 11:30 AM on September 6, 2007

I'm confused as to why the hoarder was busted. I mean, how does what happens inside his house affect anyone outside of it?

Also: Burn the Witches!
posted by quin at 11:36 AM on September 6, 2007

Most of the arguments in favor of ASBOs I've seen in this thread are exemplified by Malor's "sacrificing liberty for a little convenience" idea. No, we don't live in poor neighbourhoods in Britain, and no, we don't know what it's like to live with chavs and bike-slappers. Neither of those things mitigates the fact that the ASBO is no substitution for a robust legal system. If somebody is doing something to you that is genuinely illegal, you can report them to the police and let the legal system do its job. If somebody is doing something that is pissing you off, but is not explicitly illegal, you can take it up with them. If you fear for your safety for doing so, then you can file for a restraining order. The government does not exist to punish assholes for being irritating.
posted by tehloki at 11:36 AM on September 6, 2007 [4 favorites]

Are the British completely fucking insane?

I'm not seeing the huge deal here, how are ASBOs all that different from restraining orders (which are quite common here in the U.S.)?
posted by MikeMc at 12:01 PM on September 6, 2007

Not very different at all. I'd say the key difference is sensationalistic media coverage.
posted by Artw at 12:06 PM on September 6, 2007

Restraining orders don't involve anonymous testimony, hearsay, or the banning of an individual from specific forms of personal behaviour. To get a restraining order against another individual, one has to prove to a judge that one's life or personal safety is in danger due to that person.
posted by tehloki at 12:07 PM on September 6, 2007

Also I'm pretty sure that, in addition for a court being needed to set the ASBO, a trial is need to send someone to prison for violating it.
posted by Artw at 12:07 PM on September 6, 2007

Yes, no ker-razy stories about lawyers-gone-mad and silly restraining orders out there at all.
posted by Artw at 12:10 PM on September 6, 2007

Neither of those things mitigates the fact that the ASBO is no substitution for a robust legal system. If somebody is doing something to you that is genuinely illegal, you can report them to the police and let the legal system do its job.

ASBO's are part of the legal system. We've always used the civil law to to resolve certain disputes between neighbours. ASBO's simply adjust the sorts of disputes that are subject to that. It's only when you actually breach the ASBO that you run any risk of losing your liberty -- and that's always been the case with ignoring court orders.

But what do you do when the legal system fails the people who most need it to help? The most vulnerable in our community? When fear and intimidation holds them to ransom? These people refuse to testify, because they *know* that testifying will result in retaliation. They know this from hard learned experience. Are we to simply abandon them to the thugs? Because that appears to be what you're suggesting.

The fact that you support this idea strikes me as hideous.

Yeah, knowing an old lady in her early eighties who suffers from cancer but who is terrified to leave her home because of a tiny handful of scumbags who terrorize the street will do that for you.

I'm not saying that there aren't problems with ASBO's. There are areas where they are misused, in my opinion. Their use to exclude beggars and sex workers from the areas where they ply their trade is a despicable use of the ASBO, in my view. However, used in their proper context, they serve to protect the neediest and most vulnerable when they'd otherwise have no protection whatsoever.

You think that's hideous? You obviously have no idea what you're talking about -- because there's little that's more hideous than abandoning the weak and the vulnerable to predators, to my mind. And I'm guessing if it was your mother or somebody that you loved in that situation, you'd be singing a very different tune -- but hey, principles have always been more important than people, haven't they.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:14 PM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

Yes? Because the principle is what provides for the protection of all the individuals? Because, you know, who gets to draw the line? That poor schlub with all the crap in his house - who the hell is being predated upon in that scenario? Besides taking some of the livelihood of the local recycling organization, I mean, that guy is disgusting, but he's not hurting anyone.

Why won't you let people be free to be disgusting, England?!??? Oh, wait. I kid, I kid, something something teeth joke.
posted by mckenney at 12:23 PM on September 6, 2007

“I mean, let's face it, you any of Vice readers certainly know folks without whom the streets would be just a tad bit more liveable”

You don’t want to have to talk to ‘em do you? Or engage them in anyway, perhaps with your neighbors? Or set up youth programs so they have something to do? Or change the laws on drinking or punishment or change anything in anyway to suit the situation? That’d all be madness.
If only they could be sent to...well, not jail or prison of course, but perhaps a camp of some sort...

Out here we have public housing and gang issues. I doubt it would work here (different vibe), there are stricter laws for intimidation and gang activity and of course, bit heavier in the U.S. in sentencing minors than in the U.K - but if it works there - ok.
But (as has been said) think everyone has rights, even ‘scumbags.’
This strikes me more as the “both the rich and poor are prohibited from sleeping in the streets” kind of ad hoc law than true Oligarchical Collectivism (1984).
(heh heh - If you want a picture of the future, imagine a bus stamped with a human face -- forever)
Equity in the law is paramount to inclusion and engagement of folks who otherwise might feel disenfranchised and see no point in calling the police.
And if you don’t include swaths of folks in society they will form their own society, and that is truly dangerous.
(Guilliani btw took waaaay more credit for cleaning up the streets than he warranted)

(That Carl Wareham does look pretty scary even if he is a Lilliputian *peers from behind window curtain*)

Although if they hand out ASBO’s for being on my lawn, I’m in.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:28 PM on September 6, 2007

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about -- because there's little that's more hideous than abandoning the weak and the vulnerable to predators, to my mind. And I'm guessing if it was your mother or somebody that you loved in that situation, you'd be singing a very different tune -- but hey, principles have always been more important than people, haven't they

Pretty strident, don't you think? Man, you must be just ecstatic that the terrified 80 year old woman you know is now protected from these rejects of society:

Again this year, in Manchester, the Council used its powers to obtain an ASBO to stop mobile soup vans operating in the city centre. These vans provide food and assistance regularly each evening to about 100 homeless people. The Council however argued that after the vans had left there was a mess all over the place and people had complained. Probation staff argued that the same could be said about every kebab shop, pub, chip shop and off-licence in the city.

In October 2004, a profoundly deaf girl was served an order for spitting in public. Having broken it she is currently in prison on remand. (Source—Statewatch ASBOwatch)

The oldest recipient of an order to date is an 87-year-old who among other things is forbidden from being sarcastic to his neighbours (July 2003). He was subsequently found guilty of breaking the terms of his order on three separate occasions. He awaits sentencing but the judge has already made it clear that "there will be no prison for an 88 year old man". (Source—Statewatch ASBOwatch)

God forbid she would be confronted with soup vans, a deaf girl spitting in the street, or an old sarcastic man. The terror. The streets are now safe that these violent criminals have been denominated as ASBO. But that's good, the people don't matter, it's the principle of the thing, right? After all, this is all "to protect the neediest and most vulnerable".
posted by splice at 12:32 PM on September 6, 2007 [7 favorites]

I'm confused as to why the hoarder was busted. I mean, how does what happens inside his house affect anyone outside of it?

He may stay in his house, but odds are any attracted vermin or rubbish-cum-housefires won't.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:33 PM on September 6, 2007

I'm confused as to why the hoarder was busted. I mean, how does what happens inside his house affect anyone outside of it?

I believe that the traditional argument is that they attract vermin, which then multiply and spread to harm the neighbors. I have no idea if it is true, but I think that is the argument.
posted by Bookhouse at 12:34 PM on September 6, 2007

Or, what Alvy said.
posted by Bookhouse at 12:35 PM on September 6, 2007

Restraining orders don't involve anonymous testimony, hearsay, or the banning of an individual from specific forms of personal behaviour.

That's precisely what they do do. They ban individuals from certain areas, or from approaching certain people. In practice, most ASBO's do exactly the same thing.

To get a restraining order against another individual, one has to prove to a judge that one's life or personal safety is in danger due to that person.

Not in the British family court. Basically, all that's necessary for a restraining order is for somebody to testify that the have been harrassed or that there's a threat of violence.

ASBO's really do much the same thing. The hearsay that they're talking about tends to be Council Housing Officers or Community Policemen providing the court with reports that they've had X number of complaints about such and such a person. However, this kind of evidence on it's own isn't enough. As with a restraining order, it's a remedy in civil law, and so requires precisely the same standards of evidence as applied in other civil law cases, and so they're issued on the basis of the balance of probabilities in precisely the same way as a restraining order is.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:37 PM on September 6, 2007

This strikes me as one of those situations where cultural understanding sort of fails. I think it's a William Gibson book where he mentions that this comes up every once in while. For example, American defense of gun ownership strikes most Brits as so obviously and self-evidently wrong that it's sort of baffling to even contemplate. ASBO's might be the same, in the reverse direction.

The concept of the "Slippery Slope" argument may not exist so much in UK Common Law tradition. A lot of US constitutional law seems (to my uneducated eye) to be based on the the slippery slope idea. "We can't do that, where would it stop?" The UK common law approach seems to be "it stops where we tell it to stop, what's the problem?" But, perhaps I'm just still all rose-tinted-glasses-wearing about my new adopted home.

It may also be a question of proximity. This (being the UK) is a very small country with a fuck of a lot of people in it. Perhaps that kind of personal proximity with other people forces some legal compromises that aren't part of the US legal tradition or social feeling.
posted by generichuman at 12:38 PM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

Unmutual!
posted by anazgnos at 12:40 PM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

I'm confused as to why the hoarder was busted. I mean, how does what happens inside his house affect anyone outside of it?


My first question would be: Is it his house or is it government housing that requires certain rules be followed?

My second question would be: Livestock?

He has an ASBO for hoarding rubbish and livestock...
posted by MikeMc at 12:43 PM on September 6, 2007

splice writes "God forbid she would be confronted with soup vans, a deaf girl spitting in the street, or an old sarcastic man. The terror."

Um, so did you miss this bit of the post you were responding to, splice? Or is it that kind of selective attention that makes it so easy for you to miss the point?

PeterMcDermott writes ""I'm not saying that there aren't problems with ASBO's. There are areas where they are misused, in my opinion. Their use to exclude beggars and sex workers from the areas where they ply their trade is a despicable use of the ASBO, in my view."
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:44 PM on September 6, 2007

Peter McDermott: Thanks for setting the record straight. Stops the kids from going to the Pakistani cornershop to shout racist abuse at him several times a day.

Then again, we got an ASBO the second flat party we had a full band playing all night... Sheesh. 1000 £ if we did that again.

Prompted one of my friends to make these hoodies
posted by yoHighness at 12:47 PM on September 6, 2007

I have a feeling we Americans don't get the same concept of it...

That's it exactly. I lived for a time in a village in Wales that was in cringe mode every market day and random other times because of two aggressive, drunken brothers. Social norms are very different in most of Britain than they are in most of America-- normal British people can't or won't be aggressive to their neighbors, and it paralyzes them when someone breaks that rule.

Even their police are unaccustomed to it. I saw things said to cops in Wales that would get a perp smacked around hard in the US, never mind arrested. In Wales, the constable tells you to shut your mouth and walks away frustrated.

British people are famous for how much they can put up with before they crack, and I think it's deserved. But when one or two people abuse that situation, it has far-ranging effects for the community. Barring those destructive individuals from the community is really the most sensible.

I went back to the village I lived in for the first time in years fairly recently, and I asked a friend "What's happened with the [Hoodlum] brothers?" He told me that they were forbidden from coming near the square, and it was a big relief to hundreds of people who had previously been subjected to their abuse and threats, had to clean up their messes, and had to smell their piss everywhere.

I think the act takes things too far with issues of bill-posting and raves etc, but if someone consistently breaks a social contract, isn't it good to have an effective law to deal with it?
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:55 PM on September 6, 2007 [2 favorites]

MikeMc : Is it his house or is it government housing that requires certain rules be followed?

That makes sense, I hadn't considered that as a possibility. As does the reasons for stopping it being an effort at preventing vermin.

He has an ASBO for hoarding rubbish and livestock...

I wondered about that as well, but for all I know this could be an over the top way of saying that he had rabbits or potbellied pigs or something. I mean, when I look at this picture I don't see a lot of room for sheep or cattle.
posted by quin at 1:13 PM on September 6, 2007

Um, so did you miss this bit of the post you were responding to, splice? Or is it that kind of selective attention that makes it so easy for you to miss the point?

No, I don't think I missed the point at all. Why did you stop your quote where you did? I believe it continues:

However, used in their proper context, they serve to protect the neediest and most vulnerable when they'd otherwise have no protection whatsoever.

It's hard for me to conceptualize how "proper" it is to serve an ASBO to someone for spitting in the street or operating a soup van. Even harder to figure out how you could apply the law only in "proper contexts".

If you argument is that there is a problem and ASBOs aren't a perfect or even appropriate solution, I'm totally in agreement. But from what you write get the impression that you support ASBOs because sometimes they can be effective, and I'm afraid I can't agree with you. There's just too much potential for exploitation for my personal taste.
posted by splice at 1:38 PM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

MetaFilter: a bunch of hypocritical, apathetic muffinheads.
posted by jennaratrix at 2:07 PM on September 6, 2007

ASBOs have their uses and their flaws. Really, the problem with them is the fact that they're just so damn appealing to the courts. It's a classic case where "if you only have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail".

Another quasi-judicial remedy that was trialled at the same time as ASBOs was "acceptable behaviour contracts" or ABCs. These seemed to me to be rather better than ASBOs - they obliged the police and the parties involved to actually enter into a dialogue aimed at solutions to problems that suited everyone, based on mutual agreement. The trials showed that they worked at least as well as ASBOs.There's still that Orwellian tinge, and I doubt they could do much to correct the behaviour of some ASBO subjects, but I think it's a pity they weren't taken up more broadly.

Society - well, British society - certainly needs a remedy or two between doing nothing and criminal proceedings. ASBOs aren't a great way of doing it, though.
posted by WPW at 2:09 PM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

// old man rant begins

As a transplant to the UK from the US.. Well..

Yeah ASBO's seem to be misused at times..

But I'd argue it's no worse than the militant police in the US shit we read on Mefi all the time. Or the war on drugs fuckups or whatnot.

But.. I think ASBOS are a good idea. Arguable I don't have the cultural basis to make that call, but it seems like there's a mich higher visibility to fucknogs in UK society.

I assume it's because people live in clustured areas and actually directly interact with one another. There are shared common spaces, as opposed to the exurbs in a standard US town..

That, coupled with some trends towards excessive drinking, a seemingly very young populace, and a predilection to turning the other cheek and you get some astoundingly unpleasant behavior.

The kind of shit that would get your ass beat if you tried it in Texas, but here people grin and bear it. Nobody gets tossed in jail, nobody seems to react to it. So it gets worse.

I read a story a few days ago about some woman complaining that her kid got arrested for throwing a sausage at an old man (75-85 years old).

She was whining that it wasn't reasonable and it was just a joke... Even though it's the third time the kid has been warned by the police..

BE it ASBOs, Juvenile hall, swift kick in the ass, working 5 years in the salt mines on talgon IV, if the parents won't get their little shitheads in line... well stick their pics on the bus and make damn sure those track suited fucks stop being such assheads...

A little fear in society helps keep people in line. :)

/end old man rant. Get off my lawn!
posted by Lord_Pall at 2:24 PM on September 6, 2007

And don't get any wise ideas of giving me an asbo for posting to metafilter.
posted by Lord_Pall at 2:25 PM on September 6, 2007

A little fear in society helps keep people in line. :)

So, what are you afraid of?
posted by telstar at 2:32 PM on September 6, 2007

This strikes me as one of those situations where cultural understanding sort of fails.

This much is true. It's like the occasional threads on British CCTV where US MeFites bust a gut proclaiming Orwellian Britain is here, and a few lone British MeFites shrug their shoulders. I was amazed at the reaction when someone posted about the CCTV with loudspeakers linked to a real person operating it, so they can tell people. It just didn't strike me as much different to someone enforcing the law in person, but then maybe I'm too sucked into the machine to notice (I work in the criminal justice field)... but it's funny how different the touchstones that kick off this kind of polarisation can be.
posted by greycap at 2:35 PM on September 6, 2007

...used its powers to obtain an ASBO to stop mobile soup vans operating in the city centre..

...a profoundly deaf girl was served an order for spitting in public...

... among other things is forbidden from being sarcastic to his neighbours...

I'm not saying these aren't true, or that bad decisions weren't probably made in these cases, but they remind me a bit of the "woman sues McDonalds for millions" type of story. When you leave out the details it's easy to make it look like something completely unreasonable has happened, but a closer investigation tends to reveal legitimate arguments on both sides.
posted by tomcooke at 2:38 PM on September 6, 2007

Godamnit. ASBOs. They're not possessive. Stupid instinctual '. Sorry.
posted by generichuman at 2:50 PM on September 6, 2007

Well, I I mean ASBOs probably are possessive, in terms of personality. Not grammatically.
posted by generichuman at 2:51 PM on September 6, 2007

it's funny how different the touchstones that kick off this kind of polarisation can be

Yes, absolutely. As a Brit, CCTV and ASBOs really don't bother me as much as they probably should, and I find things like armed police, the death penalty, three-strikes laws etc. fundamentally repellent. It's a culture gap.
posted by WPW at 2:54 PM on September 6, 2007

CCTV and ASBOs really don't bother me as much as they probably should

Indeed. I laughed the other day when I saw the CCTV warning on the bus home. It said "You're on camera. Sit back and relax!" I thought it should say "You're on camera. You're going to sit there and like it."
posted by generichuman at 2:58 PM on September 6, 2007

British prisons are dangerously overcrowded. Labour's solution: more prisons, more ASBOs, and pay the prison officers less. Tough on crime...
posted by stammer at 3:00 PM on September 6, 2007

Do I have this right - an 11-year-old boy is abused and physically threatened by adults on the street, because his name and photo is posted up on leaflets around his neighborhood, captioned an anti-social offender? And this is an official government policy to do this kind of thing?

This seems like some kind of sick joke. Please, MeFi, tell me it isn't true.
posted by ikkyu2 at 3:51 PM on September 6, 2007

“I find things like armed police, the death penalty, three-strikes laws etc. fundamentally repellent. It's a culture gap.”

Er, some of use find those things fundamentally repellent as well. There might well be a culture gap, but there is a genuine disagreement on principle here.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:54 PM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

Do I have this right - an 11-year-old boy is abused and physically threatened by adults on the street, because his name and photo is posted up on leaflets around his neighborhood, captioned an anti-social offender? And this is an official government policy to do this kind of thing?

It's entirely possible he was an unloved little monster prior to his ASBO adverts.

Two 10 year old boys lead away a 2 year old toddler from a shopping centre, then tortured and murdered him. Just because someone is young doesn't mean they can't do things - intentonally - that utterly terrorise those around them, especially when operating as a group.

The police can barely touch them for minor crimes like vandalism, threatening behaviour and petty theft, due to limited evidence for any particular incident and the intentional inability for the court system to pursue criminal cases against them makes them virtually untouchable. Their neighbours and victims can't do anything - any type of vigilante justice can easily lead to criminal sanctions against the victims that snap.

ASBO's are a middle-ground. A way to do something other than nothing, or try to put an 11 year old in a youth offenders institute (jail for kids, in all but name).

Are they over-used? yes. Are they reached for too early in some cases? Yes. Have they been used for some stupid things in a tiny minority of cases? Yes. Are they a bad idea? Hell no.

for all we know, our angelic 11 year old ASBO recipient set fire to a house with a 90 year old inside. (happened recently near me, nobody involved was over 14) - or maybe he littered once too often. Without knowing the facts, it's impossible to say whether he deserved it.
Perhaps if his mum was more interested in helping him grow up into a decent member of society who didn't utterly destroy the life of his neighbours, he wouldn't have an ASBO.

In years gone by, shame, shame of being seen as a bad'un by the community at large was an effective way of allowing us all to live alongside each other in crowded places. ASBOs are an attempt, amongst others, to try that approach.

I seriously suggest you live on a sink estate you can't move out of, riddled with crime and anti-social little bastards that feel completely untouchable no matter what they do to their poor sods of neighbours, completely unrestrained by police or parents, before you decide that naming-and-shaming those responsible is a bad thing. People don't get ASBOs for one thing usually, it's when they're well known to the police and have a string of cautions to their name.
posted by ArkhanJG at 4:41 PM on September 6, 2007

These orders are simply a way of doing an end-run around the justice system to screw the unpopular

This is grandmotherly kindness compared to the American way of "shoot the unpopular".
posted by Joeforking at 4:46 PM on September 6, 2007

There are people here who think the court system is better than Asbos? Coo. How exactly do they think that's going to work? These aren't crimes, they're, well, anti-social behaviour.

I used to work in a shop in the middle of slum land. Each night, the same set of four or five guys would come down, hang about the front door, terrify customers, spit and swear at my staff, nick the odd sweet and, every now and then, threaten to stab me when I stopped them stealing a pack of Flora.

What are you supposed to do with them? The manager eventually told us to press the police panic button, which brought a team of armed cops ... who had little option but to tell these guys to move along. If they sent them to court, what exactly is the judge going to do? Send them down for six years? I think that's rather more facist and damaging to civic life than an order saying they're not allowed near the shop.

Is it a bit nanny state? Sure. But we get free healthcare too, and that's nannying. In fact, I think we need nannying. We don't get dental care free from the state, and you've seen the state of our teeth. Imagine if the rest of our civic life was like our dentistry, unchecked by the state. Shudder.
posted by bonaldi at 5:06 PM on September 6, 2007

It looks as though you might need greater engagement of your youth - positively and negatively.
This is in no way suggest to anyone how they should live with whatever their thing is without having some greater knowlege of it.
I’m just looking for clarification.
In the U.S. we have a juvenile justice system with peer review, detention centers, etc. the merits of either system (UK vs. US) are debatable, but I think the key differences in focus is rehabilitation (unlike the U.S. adult prison system) and in greater contrast - privacy. Juvenile court proceedings are kept sealed and nearly universally, their names are kept out of the news papers. There are several reasons for that, but the most important is to include parents in on the discipline.
Parents get really defensive about how they raise their kids, and keeping it private mitigates some of that and, also importantly, gets them to call the police and not to think of the police as an adversary.
Of course I say that without knowlege of any parallels in the U.K. system. But for the most part it’s education, recreation, family therapy and community involvement that works here (when it’s used - we did have a thing in the 80s and 90s with being scared straight and all that, but that was all garbage.)
And bonaldi, I don’t know how the police there feel, but in any good department, the police will want you to call them to do things like moving thugs along and such. It’s your tax money, and their job is security.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:31 PM on September 6, 2007

It's entirely possible he was an unloved little monster prior to his ASBO adverts.

I don't see how public abuse will help him become a well-adjusted, productive adult.
posted by The corpse in the library at 5:43 PM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

I can't claim any direct experience of British culture, but the thing about these stories that gives me pause is how free-form the penalties seem to be. In the Observer article that itsjustanalias linked, they mention restrictions such as not being able to kick a ball. Likewise, a ban on speaking sarcastically seems very specific. Are the punishments determined by magistrates, or what?

I'm also not really sure why some of the more egregious crimes mentioned couldn't be prosecuted via existing statutes - setting fire to a house sounds like arson, and drive-by-slapping(?!) sounds like assault and battery.
posted by whir at 5:46 PM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

Alex: You needn't take it any further, sir. You've proved to me that all this ultraviolence and killing is wrong, wrong, and terribly wrong. I've learned me lesson, sir. I've seen now what I've never seen before. I'm cured! Praise god!
Dr. Brodsky: You're not cured yet, boy.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:58 PM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

He's only a lad...underprivileged and abused....perhaps, a little bit confused...
posted by Jon Mitchell at 11:46 PM on September 6, 2007

I can't claim any direct experience of British culture, but the thing about these stories that gives me pause is how free-form the penalties seem to be.

It's an area of concern for sure, and for me it strikes at the heart of this kind of punishment. I think, as was said earlier by someone else, that if you fail with regard to your part of the social contract then society ought to be able to impose some penalty in kind to make you uphold your part of the bargain without recourse to stiff penalties.

On the whole I quite like ASBOs on the grounds that they do provide a means for that kind of enforcement to take place. It's a clear case of the punishment needing to fit the crime. Not just fit it though, but prevent it from recurring in that precise form. It needs to disrupt the pattern of behaviour that leads to the type of problem being caused, but otherwise leave that individual free to live their lives.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to ban certain individuals from entering an area, with the threat of stiffer sanction if they don't comply. Where it gets difficult is when the problem relates to the quality of life of near neighbours. Obviously it's difficult to exclude the individuals from the area in which they live, and it would be difficult to try without fundamentally affecting rights that have previously been considered inalienable. I suspect, but don't know, that the overwhelming majority of cases fall into this category. Other than some form of community service, which could only reasonably be based on the actual needs of that community, would seem to be applicable. The chances of issuing a sanction that appears to fit the crime under such circumstances diminishes rapidly to those not familiar with local circumstances and the specifics of the individual case, and it can produce deep unease.
posted by vbfg at 3:12 AM on September 7, 2007

Um, one thing that might provide some perspective to US readers is that unless I'm mistaken, most cops in the UK don't have guns. So this means that if they're walking the streets and some drunken guys decide to be aggressive, the cops are pretty much screwed. In the US, all police have guns so they automatically have an edge over delinquents: the delinquents know if they escalate the issue then there is a risk of getting shot or, at the very least, having a gun shoved in their face. I think the police in the UK have little sticks. So, all you have to do is be a thug who's larger than a policeman and suddenly you will automatically have an edge over them.

I am not saying the gun ownership is the answer to this problem, I am just saying that under normal circumstances a cop is not going to have as much influence over the situation in the UK.
posted by Deathalicious at 4:10 AM on September 7, 2007

I think the police in the UK have little sticks

According to Wikipedia, they routinely have CS gas or equivalent these days. Extendable batons were also introduced in the 90s to replace the old wooden ones.

I live in the UK and I haven't heard of any widespread problem with police having insufficient ability to wield force.
posted by tomcooke at 4:43 AM on September 7, 2007

Oh, when they *do* have guns they have G36K Assault Rifles and they will not hesitate to fuck you up. So no problems there. Generally it takes a terrorrist, an armed robber, a nutter with a samurai sword or a Brazilian guy to bring those guys out though.
posted by Artw at 10:23 AM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

Oh brother, here I am, another hapless knucklewit providing his likely ill-considered opinion....

ASBOs are bad. They correct a problem that, inarguably, needs correcting, but they are not the right way to do it. The existence of the abuse cases (like the deaf girl spitting, or the law telling an old man he can't be sarcastic), even if they are a tiny minority, indicate the process is flawed.

A flawed legal process is dangerous to have; even if it is used 100% for good now, because eventually it will be abused. And it is apparent that it is abused already. Process exists to limit abuse, and the whole point of ASBOs, evidently, is to skirt process. Maybe it could be argued that the process should be revised, but attempts to skirt it altogether reveal a tendency towards authoritarianism.
posted by JHarris at 11:58 AM on September 7, 2007

And your example of a flawless legal process is ... ?
posted by bonaldi at 12:00 PM on September 7, 2007

splice writes "It's hard for me to conceptualize how 'proper' it is to serve an ASBO to someone for spitting in the street or operating a soup van.

The soup van thing, I'm kind of familiar with and it falls into the same sort of category that I was talking about in my previous post. Manchester police are using ASBO's in a whole lot of ways that I find offensive. I mentioned excluding beggars and sex workers. I'm guessing the soup van will work the same way. Manchester City Centre has recently seen enormous residential expansion. Developers, shopkeepers and residents all get pissed off with beggars in these new residential areas. However, soup van charity (and this is a hypothetical here) decides that they're going to host their soup dispensing in front of building X. Residents object. Shopkeepers object. Police object. Soup van people say 'fuck you', we'll dispense our soup where we damn well feel like. They get several warnings to take it elsewhere. They refuse to comply. They get taken to court and get issued with an ASBO. All the ASBO does is tell them that there's no a court order preventing them doing it. They've still got a choice whether to breach it or not.

Now I find it inconceivable that there isn't a legal mechanism to accomplish the same goals in the USA. Otherwise, what's to stop me from setting up my soup kitchen outside Gracie Mansion/The White House/your house?


"If you argument is that there is a problem and ASBOs aren't a perfect or even appropriate solution, I'm totally in agreement. But from what you write get the impression that you support ASBOs because sometimes they can be effective, and I'm afraid I can't agree with you. There's just too much potential for exploitation for my personal taste."

My argument is that while they might not be a perfect solution, I don't see any convincing argument to suggest they're anything other than completely appropriate. Like every law, there's a potential for abuse. However, they're subjected to all the same checks and balances as the rest of the civil law system and in practice, they provide a remedy for a serious problem that makes a lot of people's lives extremely miserable.

You think you've got a better solution? I'd love to hear it.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:11 PM on September 7, 2007

bonaldi: You can certainly do a lot better than going by hearsay.

PeteMcD: If there's no other solution then what you're saying is that authoritarianism is the only answer. There is a process that could solve this, it's just that people don't want to make the effort and build the consensus to produce it.

But if you want an answer, well, I'd say it would be to make it easier to gain the evidence that some incident has occurred repeatedly, enough so that the case could go to trial, and the accused would have an opportunity to defend himself. I mean, if the Brits are going to have a surveillance culture, then they might as well get some good out of it.
posted by JHarris at 12:50 PM on September 7, 2007

bonaldi: You can certainly do a lot better than going by hearsay.
But can you do flawless? Because ... A flawed legal process is dangerous to have.

I'd say it would be to make it easier to gain the evidence that some incident has occurred repeatedly, enough so that the case could go to trial, and the accused would have an opportunity to defend himself.

Like I said above, the courts are really not the best way to deal with this -- at least, jail time certainly isn't. The prisons are overcrowded enough with licence fee dodgers -- are you going to fill them with kids who shout at grannies and soup kitchen owners as well? How would that be better for society than just stopping the kids shouting at the grannies?
posted by bonaldi at 1:06 PM on September 7, 2007

JHarris writes
"PeteMcD: If there's no other solution then what you're saying is that authoritarianism is the only answer. There is a process that could solve this, it's just that people don't want to make the effort and build the consensus to produce it.


Firstly, I don't accept that it's authoritarianism. On the contrary, it's more like communitarianism. In the main, we're talking about stuff that almost everybody agrees with. This really isn't about a bunch of kids, spitting in the street or skateboarding or whatever. It's about seriously intimidating behaviour -- generally against the poorest and most vulnerable. As for consensus -- there *is* a consensus about ASBO's. They're supported by some 82% of the population. I can't think of another measure that could garner that level of support.


"But if you want an answer, well, I'd say it would be to make it easier to gain the evidence that some incident has occurred repeatedly, enough so that the case could go to trial, and the accused would have an opportunity to defend himself. I mean, if the Brits are going to have a surveillance culture, then they might as well get some good out of it."

What makes you think that there's no hearing? Or that the accused doesn't have the right to put their case? The only way that they differ from regular hearings is that they are civil proceedings, rather than criminal proceedings, and so the people involved get to avoid a criminal record and a criminal conviction, provided they don't repeat the proscribed behaviour.

Think of it like a boundary dispute, only on a larger scale. If you keep occupying your neighbours land and holding parties on it, or letting your friends live on it, or whatever, your neighbour has the right to have you evicted. There's no criminal sanction, you simply have to stop doing the shit you aren't supposed to be doing. You still get the chance to say that it's you that owns the land, or that you didn't do it, but because it's a civil matter, the standard of evidence isn't as high as it is for a criminal matter. Those issues are decided on the balance of probabilities. They're decided that way because it doesn't need the higher standard, you aren't going to lose your liberty. But the court still decides who is right and who is wrong.

If you then go on and ignore that court's order, eventually you'll go to jail. An ASBO works in exactly the same way.

Also, surveillance is one of the major tools used to gain ASBO's. When the local kids keep on painting 'Grass' on your garage fence, but you can't find someone who is prepared to testify against them because a.) they won't get sent to jail for petty vandalism, and b.) their friends will ramp up the vandalism and c.) their gangster parents will come and kick seven kinds of shit out of you for having done so, what people tend to do is gather their own evidence using CCTV cameras from their houses and gather their own evidence to force the council or the police to apply for an ASBO so that the family isn't necessarily the target.

An ASBO may well have prevented this. And crime like this is far from uncommon in poorer communities. From my own city, two weeks or so ago.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:57 PM on September 7, 2007

Peter, they use ASBOs to make things illegal that local authorities just don't like; they've used it repeatedly in the past to stop women from prostitution, for instance, which apparently is not illegal in and of itself.

The simple fact is that you can be told you can't do something that's quite legal. You can then be locked up for failing to obey that order, without ever breaking an actual law or being tried by a jury of your peers.

These things are travesties, and you will someday regret supporting them. The one thing that is always true about bureaucracy: it expands. Giving bureaucrats dictatorial power, unchecked by anything except themselves, is a incredibly bad idea.
posted by Malor at 5:07 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

Blazecock Pileon writes "Username: Bill Fillmaff
"Password: mefite

"Using fake credentials is antisocial. Back in your cage with you!"

And um, do stop being such a drama queen, Alex.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:25 PM on September 7, 2007

Peter, they use ASBOs to make things illegal that local authorities just don't like; they've used it repeatedly in the past to stop women from prostitution, for instance, which apparently is not illegal in and of itself.

Again, you're completely wrong.

They haven't ever used it to stop women from prostitution. Prostitution is perfectly legal. It *has* been used to prevent street prostitutes from soliciting. Soliciting is not legal. Never has been. Personally, I think this is quite an insidious use of ASBO's, but then I don't happen to live in an area plagued by kerb crawlers, consistently pestering my wife and children for sex. If I did, I might feel differently about the issue.

Do yourself a favour. Before continuing to waffle on and on about a subject you clearly know nothing about beyond what you've read on Wikipedia, at least do the most basic research on the subject and try and figure out it is that's going on here.

A Guide to Anti-Social Behavior Orders.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:34 PM on September 7, 2007

These things are travesties, and you will someday regret supporting them. The one thing that is always true about bureaucracy: it expands.

OK, and while you're at it, you might want to also take a look at this research report from the same government department, on initiation into drug use by young people.

From that report's conclusion:

"The policy implications of gateway effects are not straightforward. Even if it is true that soft drug use increases the risk of later involvement in hard drugs and crime, this does not automatically justify the adoption of a strict policy on soft drugs. By linking soft and hard drugs under the same banner of illegality, a strict policy stance may have the perverse effect of amplifying the gateway effect and increasing the prevalence of hard drugs in the long run. Before translating empirical findings on the size of gateway effects into policy rescriptions, one must have a clear idea of how the gateway effect arises.

In any case, gateway effects are probably too small to be a major factor in the design of anti-drug policy. Other approaches, such as education, treatment and various types of local initiative, are more likely to be effective than a general campaign against soft drugs."

This directly contradicts your notion that governments or the state always expand and increase the use of their power. What we have here is a government funded research report, published on their website because it's being used to inform current policy, suggesting that there probably isn't any point in enforcing the laws against possession of illegal drugs by young people because it would be counterproductive. And although you won't hear a politician standing up and saying that, because of the media's tendency to cripple them -- in practice, that's how it works in the UK. Possession laws, including those involving children and young people, are only really enforced when the perpetrators are engaged in some form of antisocial behaviour, and the target is the antisocial behaviour, not the desire to criminalize or otherwise restrict behaviour that is still completely illegal.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:14 PM on September 7, 2007

bonaldi These aren't crimes, they're, well, anti-social behaviour.

I used to work in a shop in the middle of slum land. Each night, the same set of four or five guys would come down, hang about the front door, terrify customers, spit and swear at my staff, nick the odd sweet and, every now and then, threaten to stab me when I stopped them stealing a pack of Flora.

What the hell are you talking about? I count loitering, disturbing the peace, harassment, theft, and assault. Those are crimes.

ASBOs are either:

1) unneeded because, like every single example you gave, the action is already a crime

or

2) a way to to punish people who aren't committing crimes, but don't fit the tastes of the Homeowners Association on steroids that the British government is intent on becoming. (Like the elderly man who was banned from being sarcastic.)
posted by spaltavian at 7:28 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

1) unneeded because, like every single example you gave, the action is already a crime
Right. So you clog up the criminal courts with all these cases ... and what sentence do they pass, exactly? Custody is both life-ruining and massively disproportionate. So do you instead get some kind of restraining order handed down by the judge?

That's exactly what an Asbo is, except without the full-on, massively cumbersome and expensive legal process but with a streamlined lightweight one. When I say these things aren't crimes I really just mean they don't deserve the heft of criminal proceedings, and there are better ways to deal with them than custodial sentences.

2) a way to to punish people who aren't committing crimes, but don't fit the tastes of the Homeowners Association on steroids that the British government is intent on becoming.
Spoken like someone who doesn't live here. There are hundreds of reasons to pick on our lot, but being a Homeowners' Association isn't really one of them. This is seriously not middle-class legislation.

(As for sarcastic man, he drove his car at kids! It's not like he has been banned from sitting on the porch dropping Wildean dry quips or cracking wise with the bon mots, here.)
posted by bonaldi at 8:53 PM on September 7, 2007

I also think there's definitely a culture gap going on. We're massively crowded here -- there are 742 Britons per sq mile (compare 348/sqmi in New York state, say) -- which is why on this map, we're deep purple.

Working out how to keep society from imploding when you're living cheek-by-jowl like this takes some doing, and Asbos is only one stage of our evolution towards a solution. Like Peter says, their approval rate is epic, so at very worst it's only tyranny of the majority. And that never goes wrong.
posted by bonaldi at 9:06 PM on September 7, 2007

That's exactly what an Asbo is, except without the full-on, massively cumbersome and expensive legal process but with a streamlined lightweight one.

Yep, those pesky rights are sure expensive. God knows no decent society can afford them.
posted by Malor at 10:27 AM on September 8, 2007

It's not like you guys have that much to be smug about, TBH.
posted by Artw at 11:08 AM on September 8, 2007

So do you instead get some kind of restraining order handed down by the judge?

That's exactly what an Asbo is, except without the full-on, massively cumbersome and expensive legal process but with a streamlined lightweight one.

I think we need to get something clear: The legal process is not supposed to be a quick, streamlined, cut-and-dry road to incarceration. Arguing for the ASBO as a step towards "streamlining" the legal system just smacks of fascism. You can't discard due process in the interests of taking some load off the legal system.
posted by tehloki at 3:56 PM on September 8, 2007

Yep, those pesky rights are sure expensive. God knows no decent society can afford them.
Well we're a country of subjects without a constitution, but we haven't had a Guantanamo yet so decent society can take the stick out its own eye.

The legal process is not supposed to be a quick, streamlined, cut-and-dry road to incarceration.
Hey, Mr Clarity, where does the incarceration come into Asbos? Of course you need the over-burdened criminal courts for that. But for ordering someone to not hang about outside the village shop between 8 and 10pm? Do you fuck. (Not that it's as laissez-faire as you guys appear to assume -- they still appear in front of magistrates, have legal representation and the right to appeal).
posted by bonaldi at 4:31 PM on September 8, 2007

but we haven't had a Guantanamo yet

Wow, bonaldi. You hold yourself to such high standards.
posted by Malor at 8:27 AM on September 9, 2007

"ordering someone to not hang about outside the village shop between 8 and 10pm"

My point is that they have every right to hang around outside the village shop between 8 and 10, unless they're breaking some sort of loitering law, or spitting on and cursing at people, in which case they are breaking some sort of harassment law. The way ASBOs make innocuous and legal things punishable by incarceration just doesn't click with me. If the courts are clogged, build more courts. Due process is more important than expediency.
posted by tehloki at 9:44 AM on September 9, 2007

As for sarcastic man, he drove his car at kids!

But that's the thing, why isn't he then banned from driving his car or something? I'll spare you my yank astonishment at the abridgment of free speech, but the thing that worries me about this is that the penalties don't seem to be laid out by statute, but are instead made up by the presiding magistrate. How are we to know that citizens are offered equal protection under the law if the law is arbitrary?
posted by whir at 10:39 AM on September 9, 2007

Well, our courts have always had way more jurisdiction over punishments than any of you would be comfortable with -- there's a guy banned from being alone with any women in Scotland, for instance -- but I don't think there's anyone in our legal establishment has a problem with it. On the contrary, it's the proposals of things like mandatory minimums that raise the storm.

tehloki: Again, there's no incarceration here! If they break the Asbo, then sure, there's a danger of it, but that's after full due process.

Malor: Why should we cleave to a construct of rights that sure doesn't seem to be working for you guys? I agree that they're important, and that the infringing of them is an incredibly dangerous road ... but you've got them, and you're going down that road regardless.
posted by bonaldi at 12:03 PM on September 9, 2007

but you've got them, and you're going down that road regardless.

This is just such bullshit; it's fucking irrelevant. Yeah, it's bad, and yeah, we need to fight it.

But it's irrelevant to and a distraction from the very real abuses caused by these ASBOs.

You are using the argument, in effect, "oh yeah? Well it's okay for us to lock people up who haven't broken the law because you have Guantanamo Bay".

That's just inane. "Well, my neighbor killed his wife, so it's okay that I beat mine."
posted by Malor at 2:19 PM on September 9, 2007

No, it's not irrelevant. You're saying that we should abandon a wildly popular and apparently successful method of low-level law enforcement, because (you say) it infringes rights (that we don't have enshrined) just because Rights Are Ace and without them the Man may well abuse his new-found powers

And I'm saying that rights may well be ace, but you have a extensive, codified system of them, and they're not preventing government abuses far above and beyond anything we've seen in this country, so they're not the trump card in this argument. I'm saying this: "Well, my neighbour threw out all his guns so he wouldn't kill his wife, but he still managed to abuse her anyway, so I'm keeping my pocket knife."

It's like someone said above, the US law system appears to be designed as if every law was to be taken to its maximum possible limit: the slippery slope school. Whereas here, it stops when we want it to stop. Which, for the most part, is entirely true.

However, I fear we're getting on to the same fruitless ground that we did talking about German anti-Nazi speech laws. The US think Rights trump it all; the Europeans appear to be more pragmatic. There was a constitution before a friend of Godwin came to power, after all.

AND FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME: THERE IS NO LOCKING UP.
posted by bonaldi at 3:15 PM on September 9, 2007

Give up on the facts, the Yanks have *decided*, that trumps facts.
posted by Artw at 4:29 PM on September 9, 2007

It's an 11 year old kid. We usually wait until a kid is 18 over here to stigmatize them as criminals and ruin their life forever, because we don't feel like 11 year olds are capable of knowing what the hell they're doing.
posted by ikkyu2 at 8:12 AM on September 11, 2007 [1 favorite]

ArtW, I'm not a yank, so all your ad hominem in this thread just makes even less sense.
posted by tehloki at 10:01 AM on September 11, 2007

(Checks location)

Same damn thing.
posted by Artw at 10:41 AM on September 11, 2007

If this were the 70's, I would be disagreeing very adamantly with that. However, with the whole Stephen Harper thing... I don't really have a leg to stand on.
posted by tehloki at 3:56 PM on September 11, 2007

Every so often a comedy judge in America will sentence someone to some kind of embarrassing public penance: walking down the street in a chicken suit, and so on. We need to go one better, by establishing a dedicated 24-hour digital TV channel on which young offenders humble and debase themselves.
posted by Artw at 2:42 PM on September 18, 2007